First of all, with the front arrays so much back from the turret face, a blind spot is created at the front of the vehicle. The forward arrays must be almost as forward as the turret face.

Most propably the sidebins will have to be removed or modified. The power supply and control cables for the system need to pass through and there might be a provision for reloading the launcher.

My guess is that the smoke launchers position will be changed too. We might be looking at a completely different turret side setup, without the sidebins and the trophy system covering all of the turret side length, together with some new bins and smoke launcher setup.

First of all, with the front arrays so much back from the turret face, a blind spot is created at the front of the vehicle. The forward arrays must be almost as forward as the turret face.

Most propably the sidebins will have to be removed or modified. The power supply and control cables for the system need to pass through and there might be a provision for reloading the launcher.

My guess is that the smoke launchers position will be changed too. We might be looking at a completely different turret side setup, without the sidebins and the trophy system covering all of the turret side length, together with some new bins and smoke launcher setup.

EDIT: I guess I am wrong:

I agree on your opinions.

The US Army says it provides 360 coverage, but I wonder about this too, especially against top-attack ATGMs...more testing would be needed, but Trophy sure alters the M1A2 SEP V3 profile more than almost any other upgrade, meaning in the future, time for a new 1/35 M1A2 SEP kit or resin conversion.

First of all, with the front arrays so much back from the turret face, a blind spot is created at the front of the vehicle. The forward arrays must be almost as forward as the turret face.

Most propably the sidebins will have to be removed or modified. The power supply and control cables for the system need to pass through and there might be a provision for reloading the launcher.

My guess is that the smoke launchers position will be changed too. We might be looking at a completely different turret side setup, without the sidebins and the trophy system covering all of the turret side length, together with some new bins and smoke launcher setup.

EDIT: I guess I am wrong:

I agree on your opinions.

The US Army says it provides 360 coverage, but I wonder about this too, especially against top-attack ATGMs...

I might be missing something, but cannot get your point.Looking at the Merkava IV, the location of the system is not far backward than in the shown M1A2, and I do not know about any reports about operational problems with this configuration.

First of all, with the front arrays so much back from the turret face, a blind spot is created at the front of the vehicle. The forward arrays must be almost as forward as the turret face.

Most propably the sidebins will have to be removed or modified. The power supply and control cables for the system need to pass through and there might be a provision for reloading the launcher.

My guess is that the smoke launchers position will be changed too. We might be looking at a completely different turret side setup, without the sidebins and the trophy system covering all of the turret side length, together with some new bins and smoke launcher setup.

EDIT: I guess I am wrong:

I agree on your opinions.

The US Army says it provides 360 coverage, but I wonder about this too, especially against top-attack ATGMs...

I might be missing something, but cannot get your point.Looking at the Merkava IV, the location of the system is not far backward than in the shown M1A2, and I do not know about any reports about operational problems with this configuration.

First of all, with the front arrays so much back from the turret face, a blind spot is created at the front of the vehicle. The forward arrays must be almost as forward as the turret face.

Most propably the sidebins will have to be removed or modified. The power supply and control cables for the system need to pass through and there might be a provision for reloading the launcher.

My guess is that the smoke launchers position will be changed too. We might be looking at a completely different turret side setup, without the sidebins and the trophy system covering all of the turret side length, together with some new bins and smoke launcher setup.

EDIT: I guess I am wrong:

I agree on your opinions.

The US Army says it provides 360 coverage, but I wonder about this too, especially against top-attack ATGMs...

I might be missing something, but cannot get your point.Looking at the Merkava IV, the location of the system is not far backward than in the shown M1A2, and I do not know about any reports about operational problems with this configuration.

[

Perhaps I am wrong too.

If one or two of the launchers can elevate to launch vertically it would enable top coverage / Robin

I might be missing something, but cannot get your point.Looking at the Merkava IV, the location of the system is not far backward than in the shown M1A2, and I do not know about any reports about operational problems with this configuration.[

The difference between the Merkava turret and the Abrams turret is the geometry.

Lets assume that each antenna covers a 160 or even a 180 degree sector with the emiting array. The 2 front antennas on the Merkava have all of that sector clear of obstacles, whilst on the Abrams the 2 front antennas have the turret side and the smoke grenade launchers inside the left or right part of the sector.

Imagine that you have a searchlight mounted in the place of each antenna. Will the spotlight be able to sead light on the front of the vehicle?

The image in the first post in this thread gives me the impression that the dark object on the box on the turret side is in front of the smoke/grenade launcher which would give it a clear view of the front sector. Would be interesting to get the facts on the launcher, does it elevate, does it rotate?

I swear the defence industries of the world are working in concert with model manufacturers. The only reason they are upgrading tanks and apc''s is so we have to buy new model kits, not because the vehicles need upgrading.I can't keep up with all the different variants of the Soviet designed T54's to the T90 series of tanks used by all the different countries. Grrrrrrrr

Of all armored vehicles the "Tank" usually is considered the least vulnerable player on the ground ... speaking in terms of general operations.... all the others are much more endangered even/especially in urban environments.Okay ... so you have all the lastest RPGs and rockets with dual-charged warheads etc. etc. ... but if not delivered from the top the worst result being a mobility-kill.I believe the TUSK packages have been of good use ?So I would set my priorities, integrating this kind of technology, on the "lighter" skin participants involved ... but as the article outlines upgrading Bradley and Striker is the real challenge here.Maybe all this talk of "light but fast" forces is reaching it's limits once you arrive in a 3rd world country were there is absolutely nothing but the lastest and newest AT weaponry.Is that why Briton is even more seriously going back and taking a more closer look at the heavier BOXER from Rheinmetall ?All this stuff has to get way smaller and more compact .... give it to the Japanese they done it before !But then again .... there is no safe place in a modern battlefield anyway ...

I swear the defence industries of the world are working in concert with model manufacturers. The only reason they are upgrading tanks and apc''s is so we have to buy new model kits, not because the vehicles need upgrading.

Lets assume that each antenna covers a 160 or even a 180 degree sector with the emiting array. The 2 front antennas on the Merkava have all of that sector clear of obstacles, whilst on the Abrams the 2 front antennas have the turret side and the smoke grenade launchers inside the left or right part of the sector.

Imagine that you have a searchlight mounted in the place of each antenna. Will the spotlight be able to sead light on the front of the vehicle?

I don't think its as big of an issue as your making it out to be. As long as the radar signals meet at the front before the engagement range of missile, there should be no issues.

Lets assume that each antenna covers a 160 or even a 180 degree sector with the emiting array. The 2 front antennas on the Merkava have all of that sector clear of obstacles, whilst on the Abrams the 2 front antennas have the turret side and the smoke grenade launchers inside the left or right part of the sector.

Imagine that you have a searchlight mounted in the place of each antenna. Will the spotlight be able to sead light on the front of the vehicle?

I don't think its as big of an issue as your making it out to be. As long as the radar signals meet at the front before the engagement range of missile, there should be no issues.

That's my point too.Even with the configuration shown in the first picture, I don't see any truoble for the device to track any incoming projectile, unless we assume that the system will wait until de missile is within a few meters of the tank.Just drawing a simple schematic -pardon my lack of skills with image editors- of the theoretical area covered by the system we can see that the turret front will not be unprotected. The location of the device is an estimation extrapolated from the picture shown, so it may differ in a few inches from the actual system.